HR’s Catch 22
As 2010 approaches, the so-called “HR thought leaders” have begun to put out what they think will happen with HR in the coming year. It goes without saying: 2009 sucked and we’re all happy to see it go. Anyway, I’m not here to criticize what they’ve predicted. What I am doing is pointing out the Catch 22 that HR faces, whether in 2010 or any year. I haven’t seen this much talked about – maybe skirted or implied in conversations – but I have two great quotations that exemplify the issue at hand. No offense to those quoted and I hope you don’t think I’m taking things out of context (because I ain’t).
The first quotation, from Laurie Ruettimann‘s take on what we’ll see in 2010 (from http://jpie.com/?p=1281):
HR professionals, vendors, and consultants will still use the words ‘Human Capital’ instead of referring to employees as people.
And then this tweet from Jason Averbook, CEO of Knowledge Infusion:
the sooner HR stops using buzzwords about how it works and talks in the language of the business; the sooner the business takes seriously (8:54 AM Dec 11th from web)
I hope you’re already starting to see the contradiction here. Here’s a hint: buzzwords. Business chastising a business unit for buzzwords is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. We have business to thank for buzzwords, Jason, so I suppose you’re right that HR should stop trying to take that right away from business at-large. Fair enough.
But by golly, if you’re talking to business, business unit, you’d better talk in the right buzzwords.
I don’t quite understand what buzzwords us HR folks use that completely bedazzle and confuse. We’ve already conceded that “people” aren’t part of a business, but “human capital” is; what else do you want from us? Yes, yes, I’ll concede there are a lot of buzzwords in the HR space regarding systems and such. Buuuuut, business, we have you and your Marketing departments to blame for that. Applicant Tracking, Candidate Management, Talent Management, the list goes on, I am aware. But these are not constructs created by HR people, these are systems, created by companies, who need to market those systems. I’m pretty sure those companies didn’t ask HR what they thought the system should be called.
All right, maybe it’s not the systems HR uses. Maybe it’s what HR does. All right… let’s see… performance reviews/evaluations/appraisals. Exit interviews. Recruitment. Organizational Development (if we’re lucky). Job posts. I’m beginning to think that if you’re in business and consider these words HR voodoo, you need to go back to school and learn the English language.
Here’s my point, in white-and-black. HR has been told, since its earliest days, that it’s not business focused. We’ve been called “administrivia” and every insulting name in the book to deride the importance of HR. The business-types claim it’s because HR just doesn’t speak their language, but as I pointed out, we do speak the language. Whether it’s “human capital” or “people,” we’re referring to the same concept, a distinct entity of thought.
So how is this a Catch 22? In order for HR to be “taken seriously” and “given a seat at the table,” they have to speak the language of business. However, it appears to me that whenever HR does talk, business believes it’s in HR terms, not business terms. So the only solution is for HR to not be HR, really.
Wrong? Right? Insane? Let me know what you think about the HR Catch-22…
